NOTE: PeaceMakers.net is so named since 1983, long before
the "Christian Conciliation Service" began promoting it's self as Peacemaker
Ministries to take advantage of Mr. Sande's book "The Peacemaker" published
in 1991 and later (I think 1995) changed it's public name. Mr. Sande
and CCS were well aware of PeaceMakers.net as we had been often
asked to speak or participate in their conferences and cases, when they
made their choice of names. Therefore, it is a false accusation to
say that PeaceMakers.net stole their name.

What is the Biblical foundation for such a Biblical and public rebuke...It
is always with great sadness and broken heartedness that there comes a
time according to God's Word that those who were once treated as brothers
and sisters in Christ must be openly & publicly rebuked in prayer that
they might repent. Matthew 18. It's particularly shaming that this
one is called Peacemaker Ministires and His peace. This is not a
conflict between two ministries-this is about fidelity to God's Word and
the faithful love and acts of obedience to Christ Jesus. As Paul
says...

"Now in this that I declare {unto you} I
praise {you} not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the
worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear
that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For
there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may
be made manifest among you." [1Corinthians 11:17-19]

"Be not ye therefore partakers with
them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now {are ye} light in the
Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit {is} in all
goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable
unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works
of darkness, but rather reprove {them}. For it is a shame even
to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all
things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever
doth make manifest is light. [Ephesians 5:7-13]

UPDATE APRIL 22-23 SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMYon Peacemaker Ministries &
His Peace website..."We are pleased to note that Focus on
the Family will broadcast a two-part radio interview with Ken Sande on
April 22 and 23. Ken will speak about biblical peacemaking, with a special
emphasis on his new book, Peacemaking For Families. Spread the word and
be sure to tune in!"

Peacemaker Ministries & His
Peace

"Mr. Ken Sande", states Rev.
Alfred J. Poirier, pastor of Rocky Mountain Community Church of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church in Billings, MT. "is a member in good standing and
an inactive elder in our church."

Here's one example:Pearl in a Pig's
snout-Evangelical Hypocrisy,"{As} a jewel of gold in a swine's snout,
{so is} a fair woman which is without discretion." Proverbs 11:22

We know these men...we've treated them as brothers
and prayed for their repentance while for years we've tried to reach out
to them, to unite in Christ-believeing at a minimum 1Corinthians 3:13-15
"Every man's work shall be made manifest:
for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and
the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work
abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If
any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall
be saved; yet so as by fire." now
the following requires us to openly/publically rebuke them...

While Dr. James Dobson and Focus On The Family
(FOTF) continues to live/operate in open sin by stubbornly rejecting Church
Discipline (Matthew 18 in the dispute with the Alexander-Moegerles- (see
the beginning of the dispute at http://www.peacemakers.net/peace/dobsonnobeliever.htm)
and others, plus Dr. Dobson's and Focus On The Family's uniting with Mormons,
Muslims, Hindu and others, Ken Sande (author of The Peacemaker-Baker
Books) rather than rebuking Dr. Dobson and FOTF for their ungodly practices,
instead promotes Dr. Dobson and FOTF as...

From an organization calling it's self
http://www.peacemakerministries.org and http://www.hispeace.org/...led
by Ken Sande in Montana/USA his website affirms...."indicates that an organization
has affirmed the Peacemaker's Pledge and is a Partner in Peacemaking....

Focus on the FamilyForty managers at Focus on the Family received
a day and a half of custom Peacemaker training in 1996. Several staff members
subsequently completed the entire Conciliator Training Program and have
been teaching peacemaking within the organization. Ken Sande spoke at their
1997 and 1999 Attorney Conferences. Focus on the Family has published two
articles on biblical peacemaking, one in the June, 1998, edition of Pastor's
Family, and the second in the November,1998, edition of Teachers in Focus."

The President, of Peacemake Ministries-His Peace,
Mr. Ken Sande told me he wants to earn the right to teach and be heard
by Dr. Dobson-and today's Evangelical leaders, in hopes they will someday
practice peacemaking. Jesus Christ already is that and Dobson continues
to refuse Biblical Reconciliation through Church Discipline, and Sande
knows it! So Sande has built an organization that let's people affirm
a pledge and continue living in open sin...Sande has their blood on his
hands and head, may God grant Mr. Sande and his staff repentance....

Christ says "Give
not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend
you." Matthew
7:6

Christ also says: "Moreover
if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear {thee, then} take with thee one or two more, that
in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And
if he shall neglect to hear them, tell {it} unto the church: but if he
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and
a publican."
[Matthew 18:15-17]

1/20/2001

Hi Ken while surfing your site to get info for
a referral I found this...

Focus on the FamilyForty managers at Focus on the Family received
a day and a half of customPeacemaker training in 1996. Several staff members
subsequently completedthe entire Conciliator Training Program and have
been teaching peacemakingwithin the organization. Ken Sande spoke at their
1997 and 1999 AttorneyConferences. Focus on the Family has published
two articles on biblicalpeacemaking, one in the June, 1998, edition of
Pastor's Family, and thesecond in the November,1998, edition of Teachers
in Focus.

You've shamed yourself....

bill

1/22/2001 reply by Ken Sande

Dear Bill,

I was surprised to receive your recent messages. As I recall, you and
I had previously discussed and recognized that we have very different views
about the Dobson/Alexander-Moegerle situation. The information about our
training with Focus on the Family has been on our web site for three years,
so I thought you were already aware of that activity. Moreover, to my knowledge
Focus has never signed a pledge regarding its views on conflict resolution.
(If something on our web site indicates otherwise, I will certainly correct
it.)

As I understand your position, you believe that you have legitimately
exercised authoritative church discipline against Dr. Dobson, and all other
believers are required by God to respect your decision and treat him and
his entire organization as we would “a pagan or a tax collector.”
As I have indicated before, based on my understanding of the facts in that
case and my view of ecclesiology, I disagree with your position.

Given the strong language in your recent messages, you clearly believe
that I have committed a grave wrong by not agreeing with you. It is your
prerogative to present a complaint to Peacemaker Ministries’ board of directors
and, if I am accused of personal sin, to the elder board of my church (see
attached policy). If either board concludes that your complaint is valid,
I will submit to their correction. Our board of directors is comprised
of six individuals, one of whom is my pastor. I have no seat on the Board.
There are nine elders in our church, and only my pastor serves on the ministry
board. Not one of these people would hesitate to firmly confront me and
insist that I repent if they think I have committed a serious sin or error
in judgment.

If you chose to submit a complaint, please provide thorough background
information in order for the board to fairly consider your position. Based
on what I know of our board, I believe they will be particularly interested
in understanding the ecclesiastical basis for your position (i.e., what
authority you believe you had to pronounce discipline against Dr. Dobson,
and what process you followed in doing so). It would be helpful if you
would support your position with as much Scripture and concrete evidence
as possible (e.g., copies of letters or board minutes).

I believe the board will want to know to whom you are accountable in
case they decide it is necessary to seek additional information from or
otherwise communicate with the other men who lead your ministry. In addition,
they will want to know at the outset what respect you will show for their
evaluation and conclusions. If they agree with you, it will be easy to
accept the result. But are you also open to the possibility that they could
reasonably disagree with you, or is it your position that everyone who
disagrees with you on this matter and works with Focus on the Family is
inherently wrong and “has blood on his hands”? Finally, do you want the
board to critique only my position and actions toward you, or are you open
to receiving their thoughts with regard to your position and actions toward
me?

I encourage you to communicate directly with Alfred Poirier, the chairman
of our board and pastor of my church, at rmcc@mcn.org. It will be best
for you to communicate in writing (by e-mail or letter) so that he will
be able to fully and accurately pass your views on to the other people
on the board.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to cooperate with
you in resolving our differences in this matter.

Sincerely,
Ken
Ken Sande
President
Peacemaker Ministries

1/23/2001 Letter from PeaceMakers

Dear Ken, Gary and Rev. Alfred Poirier...I attempt to present reasonable
facts and use God's Word as the judge...you should only agree with God...not
me or anyone else unless agreement is unified in Christ.

Fact: Dr. James Dobson and Focus have open disputes (since early 1990's)
that have failed in steps 1 & 2 of Matthew 18-including a dispute as
to why steps one & two failed.

Fact: Dr. Dobson and Focus have never submitted these disputes for judgment
by those in stewardhip of God's authority, as taught by Christ.

Fact: Dr. Dobson's former church and pastor in California (H.B.London)
refused to hear these issues as well as did the Alexander-Moegerle's home
church (Paul Cedar).

Fact: Dr. Dobson's former church pastor (H.B.London-a relative) is now
on staff at Focus and a part of another dispute.

Fact: Dr. Dobson has recently become a member of a church in Colorado
Springs who stated they will not hear any Biblical disputes concerning
Dr. Dobson.

In this light you and your organization say the following on your website...

NETWORKING:
By God's grace, Peacemaker Ministries has had the privilege of working
with many Christian leaders and organizations who share our desire to promote
biblical peacemaking (see statement on diversity below). To learn more
about
these networking contacts, please click one of the following links.

PARACHURCH NETWORKING:
indicates that an organization has affirmed the Peacemaker's Pledge
and is a Partner in Peacemaking.

Focus on the Family
Forty managers at Focus on the Family received a day and a half of
custom Peacemaker training in 1996. Several staff members subsequently
completed the entire Conciliator Training Program and have been teaching
peacemaking within the organization. Ken Sande spoke at their 1997 and
1999 Attorney Conferences. Focus on the Family has published two articles
on biblical peacemaking, one in the June, 1998, edition of Pastor's Family,
and the second in the November,1998, edition of Teachers in Focus.

"Moreover, to my knowledge Focus has never signed a pledge regarding
its views on conflict resolution. (If something on our web site indicates
otherwise, I will certainly correct it.)" here's your pages...is
the word "signed" v "affirmed" in dispute?

This is how I believe you shame yourself...publically and so a public
rebuke...

Rev. Alfred Poirier, Board Chairman and
pastor of Rocky Mountain Community Church of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church in Billings, MT wrote on

January 23, 2000

Dear Mr. Fields,

Let me introduce myself. My name is Alfred J.
Poirier. I am the pastor of Rocky Mountain Community Church of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church here in Billings, MT. Ken Sande is a member in good
standing and an inactive elder in our church. (We have 9 active elders).
I also serve as the chairman of the Board for Peacemaker Ministries.

In light of your allegations regarding Ken and
Peacemaker Ministries, it seems to me that the judicatory most appropriate
to serve you is Peacemaker Ministries Board of Directors. As a Board, we
have oversight of Ken. He is bound by our policies and doctrinal statement.
Thus, if there are allegation/s of misconduct or doctrinal error they should
be filed with us for our examination and response. Hence, I would
appreciate all further correspondence of this nature be directed to the
Board through me.

From your response is not clear whether you wish
to file a complaint with our Board of Directors asking us to examine Ken’s
decision that Peacemaker Ministries continue to serve Focus on the Family
and make a favorable mention of that organization on its web site.

As I hope you would agree, we would not, could
not, act on mere accusations and general statements, especially those that
are reasonably subject to different interpretations or are contradicted
by others. (Although we have not discussed the matter in detail, Ken has
briefly indicated to me that he specifically disagrees with some of the
assertions you have made regarding Focus on the Family’s actions in the
dispute you have referenced.) In order for us to be obedient to Scripture’s
command to make judgments only on the basis of convincing evidence, it
is our policy that anyone who brings a complaint must support his or her
accusations with credible evidence and complete facts.

If you do wish to have the Board exercise its
stewardhip responsibilities with regard to this issue, we will need an
explicit statement from you to that affect. Once we receive such a statement
from you, we will be happy supply you with a list of the questions we would
like you to answer to enable us to render a just judgment.

My email is: rmcc@mcn.net.

Sincerely,Alfred J. Poirier, Pastor

Broken Fellowship with PeaceMakers.net
by "Peacemaker Ministries":

April 30th 2001 from Ken Sande...

"...Your third question has to do with how we handle sexual misconduct
cases in the church. We strive to work through the same channels described
above. If a pastor is proven to have a pattern of abusing children, we
recommend that his church remove him from ministry, notify the congregation
and former churches of the pattern, and notify civil authorities as required
by law. If a church tries to cover up the problem, we encourage the victims’
families to respectfully make these notifications themselves and then trust
God to work through those channels. We do not try to step into the role
of the church or state ourselves, and we do not stir up a desire for personal
revenge or broadcast the information to those who have no legitimate interest
in the matter. The same may be said for any sin problem within the church.

I’ve answered these questions out of courtesy and in good faith, Bill,
even though your language raises questions about your reasons for asking
them. Unfortunately, I do not sense that this dialogue is moving us any
closer to understanding or agreement, so I cannot justify spending any
more time corresponding with you under the present circumstances. If you
want to carry out a meaningful dialogue on these issues, with a sincere
desire for us to be like “iron sharpening iron,” you can demonstrate that
desire by first removing all of the judgmental information about our ministry
that you have posted on your web site. Until then, I will not respond to
any further accusations or questions."

Ken Sande

from Bill Fields to all....May 7,2001

Well...this is very interesting...somehow you've come to a point where
not talking/being courteous to me is Biblically acceptable because I continue
to witness by telling it to the church...and yet you continue your relationship
with those who stubbornly refuse and reject Matthew 18...You guys want
to explain that?

PeaceMakers wrote, 1/24/2001,
in response..."Rev. Poirier and thank you for your quick response.
I have given you my witness. Should I have been unclear or miscommunicated
I would be glad to try and answer your questions. As to credible
evidence, as you judge, our website has all the information I have.
Your stewardhip of Christ's authority is in our prayers,"

Jay is a brother worthy of Galatians 6:6
To order call Timeless Texts at: 1-800-814-1045

Chapter 10: Cross Congregational Discipline

So far I have been considering discipline within the local church that
involves members of the same congregation. Now it is important to tackle
the somewhat more complex questions of how to handle the problem of cross?congregational
discipline.

Within the same denomination the ways and means for pursuing cross?congregational
discipline are usually formalized in a denominational book of government
and discipline. If they are not, you should work for a common Book of Discipline
that provides for such measures.

What I wish to address in this chapter is the more difficult problem
of how to carry on discipline among churches that are not related denominationally.

Bob and Phil, members of two Bible?believing congregations of different
persuasions, have broken fellowship over a business deal. Phil. an automobile
mechanic, maintains that all the work he did on Bob's car was necessary
and, though he charged Bob five hundred dollars, that was a good price
for the labor and parts provided; indeed, below the going rate. Bob disagrees.
He thinks that Phil did unnecessary work on the car and has stuck him with
a huge bill, which he refuses to pay. Bob claims that he told Phil to let
him know if the cost would exceed two hundred dollars; Phil says Bob gave
no such instructions. Rather, Phil maintains that Bob said, "Go ahead and
do whatever has to be done," and indicated no reservations about the cost.

The matter cannot be resolved by going to court (1 Corinthians 6 forbids
that-God forbids believers to take other believers to court.), But since
they cannot work it out between them, the matter must be settled by the
church. Bob has told a number of people at his church what a rotten deal
he got and how Phil cheated him. As a result, there is evidence that Phil's
business is suffering. Phil has not yet been paid.

Phil goes to his pastor for advice. The pastor says, "It seems to me
that since Bob has made the matter public, it can be dealt with on that
level. But why don't you take a couple of mutual friends and try once more
to work out matters? If you do not succeed, go to his pastor and seek help."

One more a visit is made. Phil and those with him get nowhere. Bob says
he will not pay a cent more than two hundred dollars, and he refuses to
discuss the issue further. Phil makes an appointment with Bob's pastor,
asking him to bring the matter officially before the church. The pastor
in turn suggests that all four talk about it; he sets a date for the conference.
But nothing comes of their meeting. Both men state and steadfastly maintain
their positions. Bob tries to hand Phil a check for two hundred dollars
and declares that the matter is over. He wants to hear no more about it.
Phil shows the pastor receipts for parts that, apart from extensive labor
costs, amount to nearly two hundred dollars in themselves. He refuses to
take the check, declaring that to do so is to forfeit his right to a larger
sum.

Where does the matter go from here? Regardless of how the issue turns
out—which is not our concern at the moment—what steps should Phil take
from here on?

Phil has two options. First, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:7 he
can determine to accept the loss and drop the whole matter. If he does
so, he must be sure he bears no resentment against Bob. In particular he
must not speak disparagingly about Bob to others. If Phil drops it, it
must be dropped entirely (Incidentally, Phil had this option at earlier
stages as well.)

But it would seem from his refusal to accept the check that Phil will
want to pursue the matter further. Given his rejection of the first option,
what is Phil's second? He may pursue the matter officially before Bob's
church. He should inform the pastor that he is not satisfied to let the
matter drop and settle for two hundred dollars, especially since he has
lost five customers from Bob's church because of what he can only call
slanderous gossip on Bob's part. His concern is that the church deal with
his charges of theft and slander against Bob.

Before making charges of slander or gossiping, Phil must have evidence
to substantiate them. This will consist not only of presenting the bills
and receipts that he brought to the first conference, but also being able
to call on witnesses to the slanderous statements made to others. If he
can produce such evidence, he will be in a position to establish his case.
Apart from evidence and witnesses, he should not proceed further (cf. 2
Corinthians 13:1).

WHAT IF THE CHURCH DEFAULTS?

All of the foregoing is rather simple and straightforward. But what
if Bob's church refuses to hear Phil? What if the pastor says, "Well, Phil,
I've done all I can to reconcile the two of you. In our church we don't
do anything more; no, we will not discipline Bob." This possibility is
not at all unlikely today.

There is no direct biblical instruction about this matter because there
was no denominational problem in the first century (although there were
interchurch dealings such as the council described in Acts 15). But using
the approach stipulated by the words of Christ in Matthew 18, it would
seem that the following procedure should be followed:

1. Phil (perhaps with the guidance of his own pastor) should gently
read Matthew 18:15ff. to Bob's pastor and urge him and his church to follow
the Scriptures in this matter. He should not simply go along with weakness
on the part of Bob's church. Rather, in a kind but firm manner, he should
insist that, since they call themselves a Bible?believing church, they
are bound to do what the Bible requires. Often this sort of kind but strong
pressure will prevail.

2. If that action proves to be fruitless, then (on the basis of Matthew
18) he should take someone with him (preferably his own pastor) to confront
Bob's pastor. Frequently the matter will be settled at this level.

3. But suppose Bob's pastor refuses to hear them. Then, on the analogy
of Matthew 18, he should "tell it to the church." That would probably mean
having Phil's elders request a meeting with the elders of Bob's church.
If this meeting occurs, Phil's elders may be able to persuade Bob's that
this is the biblical thing to do and may be able to help them in conducting
a fair trial. The issue in points 2 and 3, please note, is not Phil's losses,
but the question of whether Bob's church will follow Matthew 18. The two
issues should not be confused.

4. Let us suppose, as too often is true, that Bob's elders refuse to
meet or, after meeting, refuse to carry the case further. Then, short of
Phil's willingness at this point to drop the whole matter, his church would
seem to have but one recourse: again, on the analogy of Matthew 18, Phil's
church should declare Bob's church to be "as heathen and publicans." That
is to say, they should declare them to be "no church" since they will not
draw a line between the world and the church by exercising discipline.
(Even if Phil should wish to drop his matter against Bob. the other issue—the
dealings between the two churches—should be pursued to its end. A church.
declared to be no church. may be restored upon repentance.)

This decision should never be taken unless the most careful and kind
attempts have been made to try to effect proper discipline in the other
church. But there must come q point at which the matter is set to rest.
God will have no loose ends dangling in His church.

5. If Bob's church is declared to be no church by Phil's church, then
and only then may Phil treat Bob "as a heathen and a tax collector." If
he wishes to do so, Phil may now take Bob to civil court. At times this
may be an unwise move, a poor testimony in a community that doesn't understand,
and in some cases, even an unloving act if done in bitterness. But the
practical possibility now exists. Sometimes it is wiser to drop the matter
here (or earlier), and Phil always has that option.

6. If the act of declaring another church to be no church (because it
will not define itself by church discipline) is to be carried out, it is
important to keep accurate records, testimony, etc., of all that transpired.
Moreover, before doing so, the other church should be warned of the possibility
of this action.

Let me suggest two variations on this theme. Where a congregation is
part of a denomination, the matter should be taken through the procedures
prescribed by the denominational standards before taking the step of declaring
it no church. In the case of a nondenominational congregation or one in
which the denomination does not function in cases of church discipline,
it might be advisable to call in one or two other congregations in the
community to intercede; if nothing results from this, have those congregations
agree also to declare the contumacious congregation to be no church.

RESPECTING DISCIPLINE

There is another matter. Consider this scenario: Frank leaves his wife,
Alice, for another woman. All efforts to bring about reconciliation fail.
Frank is removed from the midst of his church. Sometime later he divorces
Alice and marries the other woman. Several months after the remarriage,
Frank decides to unite with another church down the street.

Frank's former pastor calls up the pastor of the second congregation
and tells him that Frank was removed from the church of Jesus Christ on
proper grounds by church discipline. He says, "We would rejoice if Frank
is repentant and if he wants to become a part of your church. We certainly
won't stand in his way. But first he has business over here. He must seek
Alice's forgiveness and the forgiveness of the congregation. Until then,
he isn't eligible for membership in Christ's church anywhere."

If the second pastor responds biblically, Frank will be refused membership
unless he repents and does works appropriate to repentance (at a bare minimum,
that means settling matters with Alice and the former congregation). But,
as in many situations, let us suppose that the second church receives him
anyway. Then it would seem that on the analogy of Matthew 18, the two churches
must become involved to the point of satisfaction or the unchurching of
Frank's new congregation by his former one.

Now, if proper procedures were in effect in the first place, such things
would not happen. Whenever a stray sheep wanders into another fold, or
whenever a person removed from the midst of one congregation seeks membership
in another, he should be dealt with in a way that shows proper respect
for the care and the discipline of the congregation to which he belongs.
After all, it is difficult enough to get churches to exercise biblical
discipline in the first place. How discouraging it is to find that it has
been undercut by some other church down the block!

HANDLING CHURCH HOPPERS

What am I talking about? Well, first let's take up the question of the
church hopper. There are times when a person should change churches, but
he ought to do so for only the gravest reasons: a major change of doctrinal
beliefs, apostasy on the part of the former church, or its failure to exercise
discipline. Too many persons wander from church to church for superficial
reasons. If the churches in a community were to draw up a procedure to
deal with wandering Christians, far more wanderers would be reclaimed.
It would resemble something like this interchange:

"Well, it was nice to see you in church Sunday."

"Thank you, pastor, I appreciate your visit."

"Are you new in town?"

"O no! We've lived here for about ten years."

"Then perhaps you have just become Christians or are seeking to find
out how to become Christians?"

"No, we've been members of the Hilltop Church since we moved here."

"I see. Well, then you've recently had a change of belief, so you are
looking for a church that is more compatible with your new beliefs?"

"No. We just got tired of going there. The people aren't so nice, and
I can just tell that we're going to like it much better in your church.
Why, your people were so friendly, and here you are already paying us a
visit!" How many pastors and elders are taken in by such flattery!

"Well, I'm certainly happy to hear of the friendly greeting you received,
but there seems to be a problem. You know, Joe, your pastor is a Bible
believing man. He may not see everything exactly as we do here, but he
is a true shepherd and you are one of his flock. If you don't have a better
reason for leaving that fold, you really belong there at Hilltop and not
somewhere else. If you've had difficulty with some of the people there
or with the pastor, I'd be happy to set up an appointment to meet together
with them and see what we can do to bring about restoration."

"Oh, I see! Well, thanks, but no thanks.

"At any rate, I'll let your pastor know we've had this talk."

This wandering sheep will try another congregation. He should be met
with a similar response at each place. If this were to become the practice,
there would be far less wandering; church hoppers would be required to
stay and face the problems they are trying to avoid.

In some places where I have spoken about this matter, pastors have drawn
up a set of guidelines to follow. Why not talk to your local ministerium
about it? Even if only two or three congregations go along with the procedure,
it would be a marked improvement. Indeed, even if you can get no other
church to go along but you make it a practice of returning straying sheep
to other shepherds, you could do much by your example to gain respect for
discipline among the congregations of your community.

Obviously, if the person has wandered from a liberal church, where the
pastor is a wolf in shepherd's clothing, you will do all you can to snatch
him away from the clutches of that wolf. But you should always attempt
to restore a sheep to a true shepherd. Besides, you get no bargain when
a person leaves a church for the wrong reasons.

Consider this. I had just arrived as the new pastor of a congregation
when I received a phone call from the pastor of a neighboring church. He
asked,

"What can you tell me about Mr. and Mrs. So and So? I understand that
they used to be members of your congregation. They've been attending here
lately and want to join, but there seems to be something problematic about
their past."

I responded,

"I can tell you absolutely nothing. I just arrived; I hardly know my
elders' names. But I'll try to find out."

I called him back:

"I asked my elders, and they tell me that the So and Sos were disciplined
by our church and removed from the midst. (Actually. at that point I was
still using the word "excommunicated ") You'd better talk to them about
it. If they are truly repentant we wouldn't mind them uniting with your
church, but they have unfinished business here first. We would be glad
to restore them upon repentance and then, if they wish us to do so, send
them by letter to your church."

"Oh!" he said. "Thanks."

I didn't hear from the pastor again, but some months later I saw him
at a pastors' gathering. I asked about the So and Sos.

"Oh," he said. "We took them in anyway, and they have just split our
congregation. They took half a dozen families and went to start another
church."

Don't expect anything but storms when you take a Jonah into your boat!

DIVISIVE PERSONS

Let me say a word about schism. In Titus 3:10 Paul writes, "After counseling
him once or twice, give up on a divisive person, and have nothing more
to do with him."

This is a vital direction. There should be provision to speed up the
disciplinary process in cases of divisive persons. If you linger too long
over the process, you may find your church divided. Paul is clear: if the
divisive person does not cease his divisive ways after one or two confrontations,
remove
him.

In cross?congregational discipline, therefore, it is not enough to do
what you can at your own church. It is essential, also, to hold other churches
responsible to follow Christ's directives. When another congregation refuses
to follow the discipline that Christ provided for your member and you do
nothing about it, it is not only that other congregation that is lax. If
you fail to make every effort to get that congregation to satisfy Christ's
demands, you too are guilty, and the care of your own member is seriously
lacking. If the other congregation refuses to listen to your biblical directives,
then that congregation, no less than an individual believer, should be
"removed from the midst."

It is imperative that all these disciplinary steps be taken—and taken
with the right attitude.

LIBERAL CHURCHES?

Where you have certain knowledge that a congregation denies the essentials
of Christianity, you should not send persons back. Indeed, you should do
all you can to get people out of such "churches." Admittedly, many cases
are borderline and not quite so clear. But in the case of a liberal church,
it would seem, you have a clear obligation to pursue discipline.

In those instances in which the other congregation rightly responds
by exercising discipline, you may be pleasantly surprised to discover brothers
where you once wondered about them. In cases where a congregation refuses
to pursue discipline on behalf of a member of your congregation and you
must declare them to be "no church," the discipline issue itself is what
allows you to make that statement. Either way, discipline helps sharpen
the focus of an otherwise fuzzy situation.

All inter?congregational discipline must be carried on with the utmost
care. Special care must be taken so as not to "take sides" with members
of your own congregation but, instead, to make impartial judgments based
on the facts.

In cases where you disagree with the judgment of another congregation,
you may have to act according to your conscience in ways that differ from
that judgment—but only after it has been made perfectly clear that you
appreciate that they have rendered judgment. Your reasons for departing
from their judgment should be given: and just as when brothers are separated
by other differences which grow out of divergent interpretations and applications
of the Scriptures, you must continue to recognize the other congregation
as a true church of Christ.

This is very different from declaring a church to be no church. In almost
every instance, the judgment of the disciplining church should be accepted.
Only in cases where the judgment involved matters of conscience should
it be disregarded.

Thank you for your responses. Due to a trip
out of state on presbyterial matters, I will not be able to begin to process
your complaint until next week. I say this lest my silence be mistaken
as a failure to respond to your concerns.

Thank you also for the note on Jay Adam's re:
prosecuting judicial cases cross-institutionally. I am very familiar
with it having had to use those principles at the local church level.

Hello all...since both Ken Sande and Rev. Poirier
have shown respect and honor for Dr. Jay E. Adams, as do I, Jay said he
would help in anyway possible. I offer Jay's servanthood as hope of bring
God's peace and growth...

Alfred J. Poirier,
Pastor of RMCC, OPC
Chairman of the Board of Directors for Peacemaker Ministries

Dear Mr. Fields,

One function of the Peacemaker Ministries’ Board of Directors is to
evaluate and respond to the type of concern that you have expressed regarding
Ken Sande. In order to do so in a fair and thoughtful manner, we
request that you follow the guidelines outlined in this letter.

In your email communication of January 24, 2001 you stated:

“I have given you my witness. Should I have been unclear or miscommunicated
I would be glad to try and answer your questions. As to credible evidence,
as you judge, our website has all the information I have.”

In order to properly evaluate your complaint we will need you to be
more specific as to your charges, specifications and biblical support.
I urge you to file your charge/s against Ken in the manner similar to that
prescribed by the OPC BOD, 3.3. The ARP Book of Discipline also prescribes
something similar to the OPC, see ARP Book of Discipline, chapter 5.17.
Upon receipt of your charges et al our Board will institute a preliminary
investigation similar to that specified in OPC BOD 3.7.

OPC, BOD, 3.3 Adapted For Our Use

Every charge of an offense must: (a) be in written form, (b) set forth
the alleged offense, (c) set forth only one alleged offense, (d) set forth
references to applicable portions of the Word of God, (e) set forth the
serious character of the offense which would demonstrate the need for review
by the Peacemaker Ministries’ Board.

Each specification of the facts relied upon to sustain the charge must:
(a) be in written form, (b) declare as far as possible, the time, place,
and circumstances of the alleged offense, (c) be accompanied with the names
of any witnesses and the titles of documents, records, and recordings to
be produced.”

We would also encourage you, in order to allow for and encourage good
faith dialogue in these sensitive matters, to remove references to Ken
and his staff from your web site until this process is over and the Board
has had an opportunity to evaluate and respond to your complaint.
Our expectation is that communications between us would be held in confidence
throughout this process and not made public on your web site (see your
website, “Here’s One Example: Pearl in a Pig’s Snout-Evangelical Hypocrisy”).
I’m sure you can understand the biblical reasons for this, Mt. 18.15ff;
1 Tim. 5.19; Jas. 5.11-12; Prov. 18.15. This last one is significant
for peacemaking and should be familiar to you. We practice it in our courts
(OPC):

Prov. 18.17 The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.

Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Your brother in Christ,
Alfred J. Poirier
Go back

Rev. Poirier, Thank you for your letter...the materials on our website
will stay as this issue with Peacemakers Ministries has been open for several
years and Ken et. al. have been aware of our materials and information
for sometime. This became a public issue upon discovering your support
of Dr. Dobson on your website, therefore this process will remain public.

You, Ken etc. continue to support Dr. Dobson while he is in open sin
for failure to use Matthew 18's full steps to resolve and have judged his/their
dispute with the Alexander-Moegerles. These are open facts.
You have read my statements and witness of these facts.

I believe this meets your criteria for a formal charge...should you
choose to remove Dr. Dobson and Focus On The Family from your support and
website I believe you will be acting in accordance with God's Word.

Upon my request of Feb. 6th that you supply us with specific charges,
specifications and support in bringing your allegations against Ken, you
thanked me and again directed me to your website as a sufficient “presentation
of your case.”

I know this may seem to you a full and obvious presentation of your
case. Having sat on many judicatories, it is often the case that those
bringing allegations against another are unaware of the necessity and nature
by which they must frame their allegations before a judicatory. That is
why I requested that you frame your concern in a manner that is consistent
with the OPC Book of Discipline, 3.3

Every charge of an offense must: (a) be in written form, (b) set forth
the alleged offense, (c) set forth only one alleged offense, (d) set forth
references to applicable portions of the Word of God, (e) set forth the
serious character of the offense which would demonstrate the warrant for
a trial.

Each specification of the facts relied upon to sustain the charge must:
(a) be in written form, (b) declare as far as possible, the time, place,
and circumstances of the alleged offense, (c) be accompanied with the names
of any witnesses and the titles of documents, records, and recordings to
be produced.”

Scripture directs us Prov. 18.17 The first to present his case seems
right, till another comes forward and questions him. Before the Board can
question you much less question Ken to get his response to your allegations,
we need specifics as to what precisely your charges are as to: time, place
and people concerned, chronology of pertinent events, etc.

By not being specific you ask us, in effect, to present your case for
you. We are unable to do this.

First, the Board cannot appreciate the significance of or connection
between all the various pieces of information you have posted. Secondly,
the Board is not capable of “reading your mind” as to what information
you think is relevant or not. We are not standing in your shoes.
And no one but yourself is in a position to adequately and accurately represent
your concerns and your perspectives or tell your story.

Our desire is to give you and any others bringing complaints before
us the best possible opportunity to be understood so that the Board can
arrive at an accurate understanding of the truth. If you decide to not
present a more detailed allegation, consistent with this request, I will
conclude our communications, copy our correspondence to the Board and await
their response.

Rev. Poirier, if you can not see the shame and biblical failure in this
case, there is nothing I can do to help you, yet I offer again the relevant
facts...

Rev. Poirier...what does your church do when steps one and two of Matthew
18 have failed and a member refuses any further participation-rejecting
step three-rejecting your stewardhip of God's authority and God's Word?
What would your church do if this person would seemingly only cooperate
with a mediation process outside your church and not subject to Christ's
authority and Word? It seems they are to be treated as a non-believer.
Yet you and Peacemaker Ministry treat them as Christians in good standing.

What does your church do when you see another church refuse the Matthew
18 process and clearly refuses to hear step three of Matthew 18?
It seems they are to be treated as a non-church. This is why I sent you
Adam's chapter on Cross Congregational Discipline. Yet you and Peacemaker
Ministry treat them as a Christian Church in good standing.

Would you be supportive of an organization calling it's self Christian
that promotes that person as a Christian/believer? Would you be supportive
if that organization promoted that this person who does not act as a believer,
is a part of and supportive of a process that they reject? Yet you,
Peacemaker Ministry, and your church believe yourselves righteous.

You, Ken Sande, your church are not only cooperating but promoting Dr.
Dobson...who has rejected all Church Discipline steps and continues to
be a member of a kind of church that will not practice Matthew 18.

Ken Sande's stance that Dr. Dobson agreed to mediation and the Alexander-Moegerles
didn't therefore there is nothing that can be done...is not false (there
had been earlier attempts to Get Dr. Dobson to a Matthew 18 process and
he rejected them all -as have all the "churches" he's been a member).
Then after years of attempting the Matthew 18 process, Ken comes into the
picture and declares Dr. Dobson's willingness for an unbiblical process
(mediation outside the church) declares Dr. Dobson righteous. This is absolutely
shameful.

However, even if Ken were accurate and biblical-which is preposterous,
when a step in Matthew 18 fails then all that has been witnessed proceeds
on to each necessary step till there is Biblical justice and public correction
or celebration of reconciliation. Which has not happened nor supported
by Ken, you, Peacemaker Ministries, nor your church.

It would be a mistake to believe our dispute is whether Dr. Dobson's
willingness for mediation outside of God's Word-Matthew 18 and the Alexander-Moegerles'
rejection of again repeating extra-church processes is the full nature
of our dispute.

You, Ken, Peacemaker Ministries and your church support Dr. Dobson and
cooperate with Dr. Dobson and FOTF knowing full well of their stubborn
and persistent refusal of Church Discipline.

Or maybe I can make this simpler for you...

1. There is a dispute with Dr. Dobson and FOTF
2. There has never been a completion of Matthew 18 in this dispute
3. None of the "churches" Dr. Dobson has been/is a member of will exercise
Matthew 18 in this dispute-and H.B. London Dr. Dobson's pastor in California,
who refused to practice Matthew 18 in this dispute, is now on FOTF staff.
4. You support and promote Dr. Dobson and FOTF on your website as those
who are Christians in good standing and who promote the same Matthew 18
process they stubbornly reject.

If you can not see your sin in this then shame on you...

May The Father of Christ Jesus through HIS Holy Spirit, grant repentence...

Hello all...I just spoke with Jay Adams who greatly encourages that
Ken and I "hammer" out this dispute so that we can walk in Christ's unity...Again
Jay speaks of Ken's heart being good and in the right direction-I pray
mine is as well...

As you know, Jay Adams has recently encouraged both you and me to “hammer
out” a resolution of the differences that have surfaced between us. I agree
that this would be beneficial to everyone involved, so I would like to
explain some of my perspectives and describe some steps I have already
taken. Then I would like to offer a suggestion.

As I have reviewed your web site, it is apparent that there are many
things on which you and I agree. We believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior,
Lord, and King. We believe that he died to deliver us from our sins. We
believe that he calls his followers to make every effort to live together
in peace and unity. We believe that Jesus commands churches to actively
promote peace, and, when members cannot resolve their differences in private,
to intervene to facilitate understanding and reconciliation. Finally, we
believe that he has given the church the responsibility and authority to
make binding ecclesiastical judgments when members refuse to repent of
their sins and listen to the counsel of the church. These points of agreement,
and especially our common faith in Christ, have eternal and infinitely
valuable significance, which eclipses any disagreements that lie between
us.

We also agree that many churches are failing to carry out their responsibilities
in this area, which often deprives individual Christians of the guidance
and discipline they need to overcome sin, resolve their differences, and
live at peace. In response to this deficiency, you and I have established
and serve two separate ministries, both of which are attempting to encourage
and equip churches to rededicate themselves to the ministry of peacemaking.
This is another point of significant similarity between us.

At the same time, we have some distinct differences on how we carry
out the ministries to which God has called us. We disagree on what went
wrong in a particular dispute many years ago, on where the resolution process
broke down, and on why the parties failed to reconcile. We disagree on
the role that a parachurch ministry can and should play when parties are
unable to reconcile and their churches decline to get involved. We disagree
on how to relate to such parties today. And we disagree on whether it is
edifying to publicize opinions or judgments about such cases.

We have talked about these matters before, and until one of us undergoes
a major change in theology, I do not expect these differences to disappear.
Even so, I cannot see how it is helpful to the church or honoring to God
to continue publicizing these matters. Therefore, I will do whatever I
can to lower the intensity and visibility of our differences.

I have already taken a step in that direction. Even before our recent
differences surfaced, I was considering a revision to our web site that
might have prevented this recent escalation. The section that describes
our work with other organizations, and makes implications you object to,
has grown so large that we have been unable to keep it properly updated.
Moreover, we have learned that the details of these activities are not
significant to people who visit our site. Therefore, we have decided to
eliminate this detailed information for all of the organizations. We have
substituted a simple list of the organizations that have hosted a training
event, and a second list of the organizations that have affirmed our Peacemakers
Pledge. We have also simplified some of the language that describes the
significance of these lists.

We have made these changes because we believe that such simplification
is beneficial for our staff and readers, not because we believe that any
of the deleted information was inaccurate. If these changes alleviate some
of the concerns you have raised, that is a helpful benefit as well.

I would like to suggest one further step that we take by mutual agreement.
As you are aware, people frequently confuse our two ministries. And recently
many people have been grieved to see that two “peacemaking” ministries
are clearly at odds with each other. This confusion and example does not
seem to serve any of the people who come to our respective web sites for
information and guidance. Therefore, I would like to suggest that you remove
all of the present references to Peacemaker Ministries and me from your
web site (as far as I know, we have never made any references to you on
our web site), and that each of us post mutually acceptable statements
of clarification on our web sites. I propose the following language for
Peacemaker Ministries’ web site, and similar language for yours, but with
the names reversed:

Peacemaker Ministries, founded by Ken Sande, is not connected with PeaceMakers
International, Inc., founded by Bill Fields. Although both organizations
profess similar goals, neither ministry officially recommends the other’s
work because there are currently significant differences in our theology
and methodology, which repeated discussions have not adequately resolved.
Even so, there is no animosity between us. We encourage you to assess the
differences between our organizations for yourself by reading the information
that is available on each organization’s web site. (This statement is made
by mutual agreement of both organizations.)

If you would like to propose a variation of this wording, please feel
free to do so. My goal is to eliminate confusion and acknowledge our differences,
but without unnecessary criticism of each other.

I have discussed these actions and suggestions with the committee of
our board that is reviewing your complaint, and they fully support them.
If you agree with my suggestions, conclude that the changes to our web
site alleviate your concerns, and decide to withdraw your complaint, the
committee will cease any further action. We pray that this will be the
case. Otherwise, they will proceed with their review and make a formal
report and recommendation to our entire board in May. The board would then
make a final decision and communicate their findings and conclusions to
you.

I hope and pray that this proposal provides a step forward. I look forward
to hearing from you.

Dear Ken et.al.-you're right there is "no animosity between us"-and
"until one of us undergoes a major change in theology, I do not expect
these differences to disappear."

I'm truly broken hearted. I can't begin to describe...

I'm writing to let you know we got your proposal and have forwarded
it on to our fellowship-but I have no hope we can agree with you and we
must continue our current walk. Not wanting to offend God's Holy
Spirit I cautiously add there comes a time to have nothing to do with one
until there is repentance...I fear, we are reaching such a time.

Following substantial review of your complaint against Ken Sande and
your responses to our correspondence, the Board of directors for Peacemaker
Ministries on May 5, 2001, unanimously agreed that consistent with its
policies and due process it cannot receive or consider your complaint for
two primary reasons: 1] your failure to present a case; and 2] your failure
to show good faith.

Failure to present a case:

Our first reason is that you failed to present a case. Though we requested
three times that you state clearly your concerns against Ken, you responded
each time by refusing to specify actual charges against him and their biblical
basis. Instead, you referred us generally to your web site apparently expecting
us to attempt to discern, gather, and organize your thoughts for you.

Such an approach does not rise to the threshold level of a cognizable
complaint for the following reasons among others:

a. The Board is not capable of "reading your mind" as to what information
you think is relevant or not. Even if it could, the Board would violate
its objective role as tribunal if it attempted to intuit the significance
of or connection between the various pieces of substantial information
posted on your website. No one but yourself is positioned to adequately
and accurately represent your concerns, state your perspectives, or tell
your story. Dispute resolution requires a complete and factually documented
complaint to give the complainant the best possible opportunity to be understood
and the Board the best opportunity to arrive at an accurate understanding
of the truth.

b. Scripture mandates that the person bringing a complaint or accusation
present his case clearly and specifically so that the accused has the opportunity
to make an informed defense (see 1 Timothy 5:19; Deuteronomy 19:15-18).
Since you declined to do so, we do not believe it is biblically appropriate
to consider his accusations.

Failure to show good faith:

The second reason your allegations do not rise to the minimal level
of a cognizable complaint against is the absence of the requisite good
faith throughout this process evidenced by the following:

First, instead of contacting Mr. Sande privately and personally to discuss
your concerns, as required by Matthew 18:15, you publicized your accusations
against Ken on the Web.

Secondly, unbeknownst to us and without asking our permission, you also
publicized on the Web our subsequent correspondence with you. This breaches
confidentiality, and since the Web is a public forum, open to believers
and unbelievers alike, this stands in violation of 1 Cor. 6.1ff and the
spirit of Mt. 18.15-17. Yet, when we asked you to desist from further breaches
of privacy, and the confidentiality of the biblical conciliation process,
you refused.

Thirdly, instead of giving Mr. Sande an opportunity to hear appropriately
hear and consider your concerns privately and offer an explanation, as
required by Proverbs 18:17, you not only accused him but you prejudged
and condemned him--and all in a public forum. You chose to use some of
the most conclusive and condemning phrases found in Scripture against Ken
and staff ("blood on . . . hands and head"). You did this while affirming
a sincere desire to have your accusations seriously treated as a responsible
complaint.

Given these serious deficiencies in both substance and process, our
obedience to biblical standards of justice (see 1 Tim. 5.19; Deuteronomy
19:5-18), does not permit us to entertain these random accusations, or
to further process your expressed dissatisfactions with Mr. Ken Sande though
obviously passionately held. If you still believe otherwise, you are free
to submit a proper complaint, provided you appropriately address each of
the deficiencies cited above.

Since 1983 when both the professing Church and Para-church
organizations were so filled with corruption Bill Fields founded PeaceMakers
International which was granted Illinois non-profit corporation status
December 14th 1984 as well as IRS 501 (c) (3)...

1. PeaceMakers.net, Inc.
(PMI), (PeaceMakers.net) and The Christian Court (ChristianCourt.org) are
ministries of our PeaceMakers Fellowship-a duly formed and Biblically based
Church with Jesus Christ as the foundation, i.e. local church, with all
responsibilities to practice God's Keys to HIS Kingdom. We are not consultants,
seminar/workshop leaders--we are brothers and sisters in Christ who walk
with those God gives us to whom we bear witness.

2. PMI believes and practices
that both Matthew 18 and Revelations 2-3 apply to all entities that profess
themselves Christian, (individual professing believer, Christian Churches
AND organizations identifying with Christians). There are cases where individuals,
local church leadership/members, and denominations have rejected certain
steps for reconciliation and should be treated as unbelieving. That stubborn
unrepentant entity (individual or organization) must be TREATED as non-believing.
(See
Handbook of Church Discipline by Jay Adams, Timeless Texts 1-800-814-1045)

3. PMI believes and practices
that Matthew 18:16-17 witness' responsibility of "tell it to the church"
has both a local Church and universal Church application. Ephesians 5:6-11
"Let no man deceive you with vain empty words: for because of these things
cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore
partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now {are ye} light
in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit {is}
in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable
unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
but rather expose {them}."

a. Therefore, PMI calls for help in recovering the unrepentant
and/or warning other believers within the full Body of Christ.

c. PMI preaches and identifies to the non-believing world
the principles of faith, fidelity and purity in all that Christ teaches
thereby witnessing and testifying against those who "claim" Christ's name--but
are not among us.

d. Others who call themself peacemakers stubbornly reject
this principle wrongly hoping they can "earn the right to be heard, by
becoming better friends, teaching more seminars, laboring in the fields
together, etc." How ungodly/unbiblical, only those of God's Spirit can
hear and those who stubbornly refuse to repent/listen to Christ will not
hear regardless...1 Corinthians 2...it's God's right to be heard--not me,
not us, not them and certainly hearing doesn't come by man's wisdom!

4. PMI believes and practices
Biblical peacemaking NOT mediation and arbitration. Biblical peacemaking
involves the work of God's Holy Spirit revealed in God's Word to establish/re-establish
righteousness/justice first between God and mankind in both heart and behavior,
Luke 12:13 ff, further expressed in Christian integrity and community among
believers. There is a false peace/godliness -- which denies God, (Jeremiah
6:10-17; 2 Timothy 3). PMI repents of using the unbiblical terms, Biblical
mediation and arbitration. All efforts at peace based on anything other
than Jesus Christ, as the foundation, is wrong. Psychology, sociology,
or other "wisdom teachings" may effect civility (false peace) but not righteousness
between mankind and God or within God's family. God have mercy on those
false teachers teaching a system/program/process without Godly mature shepherding
denying God's Holy Spirit and HIS work establishing a false peace...Matthew
18:1-14. This is a major evil today causing untold grief and pain to those
with an honest heart seeking God's righteousness & peace.

5. PMI believes and practices
true Christians exercise submission and obedience to God's Authority through
Jesus Christ in faithful stewarship by those charged as overseers, and
with one another (Matthew 18:15-20; Matthew 28:18-20; John 5:26-27; 1 Corinthians
6:1-11; Ephesians 4-5; Hebrews 13:7-8, 17).